Bring It On!

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

They dont like Hugo for the same reasons they dont like Iran North Korea and Iraq they switched to the Euro and doing so cut the US skim option out of there oil trade. The Coup was tried and failed very shortly there after. We make nothing in this country anymore and the only way to keep the greenback strong is to make sure the US Dollar is the monitary exchange for oil sales worldwide. Hugo isnt a bad leader he is just defiant, kind of like Kennedy,MLK and Clinton were. If we cant get our 10-15% on US dollar Oil exchage we would have in some views(not mine) a BAD RECESSION..like Russia did twice in the 90’s.

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Yup, you’ve got it. Chavez is a threat because he’s defiant and won’t toe the line. And that has to be framed as “Communism!” and “Nuclear weapons from Iran!” so that John Q Public will react properly. And unfortunately this tactic works every time.

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

First off, when did Iran get nukes? That’s news to me.

And if Venezuala is trying to get nukes, good for them.

We are the main reason for nuclear poliferation. I say this precisely because of Iran and North Korea. You see we have set an example that if you have nukes we’ll talk to you instead of invade. We only invade helpless coutnries with no means of deterance (i.e. Iraq).

So by doing this we are forcing other countries to seek out nuclear weapons. What a tangled web we weave.

Hey, I have an idea, we so much want a nuclear free middle east, right? OK how about we tell Isreal to get rid of their nukes and maybe the other countries in the region will stop trying to acquire them. What a fucking double standard!!!

Great post Tom!!!!

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Yup, with North Korea, knowing they’d give us a run for our money, it’s all “now, now, calm down, we can talk about this.” Gee, why are so many third world countries getting so ornery with us?

And if their only alternatives are: a) get walked on by Halliburton and the International Monetary Fund, or b) get walked on by a leftist leader who promises to make poor people’s lot in life a little easier — it can’t be too surprising when some people choose B.

We’re forcing their hand, and then we get pissed because some of them choose what we didn’t want them to choose. And the cycle keeps repeating itself.

By pia on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Hey Tom I thought everybody knew that Pat Robertson is a seer

I guess my next statement will prove me to be the leftist I’m supposed to be:

For as long as I can remember the United States has been intefering in South American countries that have been fighting for freedom. In the 70’s Chile was the country that was most affected

I thoroughly agree with you about how millions of poor can be reigned in simply because of their poverty. I lived in Mexico and saw how much the Catholic church controlled, and how willing the people were to be controlled.

Actually it was living in Mexico, high school summers, that radicalized me as the way the people responded to the Church continually amazed me. Being a North American I wanted to shake people and tell them that they were free they didn’t have to bend to the will of the Church, but I soon understood that they had no choice.

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Yeah, I meant to use Chile as an example along with Guatemala. Their September 11th (that was the date, really) was 1973; I’m old enough to remember it well. Same rationale: A leftist had gotten elected, and we had to stage a coup and install a rightwing, uh, “democracy” (which happened to kill and torture thousands).

We (meaning the corporations that run our government) keep treating third world people like they’re just so much chattel, and then we’re just flabbergasted when some of them turn to a Leftist leader who promises “reform.”

Neurotic governments, just like neurotic people, keep doing the same thing over and over and over…

By Vince on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Tom–I have a feeling that if our Corporate Government is postured to sell out the American people in the long run, a Leftist Government could accomplish the job much faster…What we may need is moderation.

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Moderation? Now there’s an idea. It’s never happened yet — it always seems to be one extreme or the other — but we can hope.

By LiberPaul on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

It is about control over the people of Venezuela, and it just a matter of who get to do it. Check this out for an interesting recap of “The Wave”. If any of you remember watchning the TV movie as a kid, this really explains it well, how people are controlled and how easy it is to do.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/fields1.html

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

That was a good read. I remember hearing about that. I don’t think Chavez is the good guy or anything, but it’s an internal matter for Venezuelans to decide. To paraphrase what FDR said about a Central American dictator: “He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he’s their son of a bitch.”

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Assasinate the fucker!!!!! (Chavez)

By Jet on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

There you go again, Treason, spoiling your pro-life image.

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Treason,

Your reasoning would be that Pat said so? What do you know about Hugo Chavez?

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

The Bastard..

we know Bush dosnt like him and yes he may be a good leader or a bad leader it really doesnt make a big difference. the only thing that matters is the Seven Sisters and the Seven Sisters tell Bushie that he doesnt like Chavez because He along with alot of so called “Axis Of Evil” countries are switching to Euro Exchage for Oil sales (Indoneisa,Iraq (they did but of course in the process of SPREADING FREEDOM we switched it back prompltly after invading) Iran North Korea and yes Venezuela. It has nothing to do with him be aligned with Castro or Donald Duck. The powers that be want to skim the Greenback off Oil sales WORLDWIDE and countries that switch to the much more stable and long term Euro will hear from Bush as the Seven Sisters want them to.

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

TB, I didn’t say a thing about Pat now did I?

Here is a short beginning so YOU can get educated. Your hero Clinton is even quoted in this if you actually read it. Which I’m sure you won’t……..

Chavez in Full View
Constantine C. Menges
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
The recent events in Venezuela were dramatic. Yet much of the discussion in the United States began and ended with the fact that President Hugo Chavez had been democratically elected in 1998.
Ignored were his record of anti-democratic governance since taking office in 1999, his alliances with terrorist partner states like Cuba, Iraq and Iran, his sponsorship of state terrorism and the implications of these facts for the future.

On April 9-10, hundreds of thousands of protesters from pro-democratic political parties, labor unions, and business and civic associations marched in the Venezuelan capital to show their opposition to the latest anti-democratic actions of Mr. Chavez.

In response, Mr. Chavez mobilized his paramilitary armed thugs, the “Bolivian Circles.” They were televised shooting the unarmed protesters, killing and wounding more than 100 while others sped around on motorcycles looking for journalists to attack. Mr. Chavez also sent armed supporters to close down television stations reporting the protests.

When Mr. Chavez ordered the military to use force to halt the peaceful demonstrations, 30 senior officers refused to obey. They said Mr. Chavez had violated “democratic principles” and that they would no longer recognize his authority because they wanted to “avoid more spilling of blood and the destruction of our brave people and their institutions.”

From their point of view, those military leaders were joining a broad-based civic movement calling for the end of an emerging Chavez dictatorship, just as had occurred in 1945 and again in 1958 when a civil-military coalition removed a dictator and Venezuela began its four decades as a political democracy.

Understanding the reasons the pro-democratic groups in Venezuela oppose Mr. Chavez requires a brief review of his anti-democratic actions, which have been little noted outside Venezuela.

Mr. Chavez moved Venezuela through four principal phases.

First, the use of illegal and pseudo-legal means to invalidate the existing constitution (in force since 1961) and have a new constitution written by his supporters (1999).

Second, under the new constitution, having himself eligible to be president for two six-year terms and obtaining a unicameral legislature that would give him dominant federal powers (2000).

Third, beginning his “social revolution” by using presidential decrees in the fall of 2001 to begin confiscating private property.

The fourth phase began in January, when Mr. Chavez established the political command of the Revolution under his direct control to supervise the “Bolivian Circles” - an armed militia of Chavez supporters who would intimidate and if necessary seek to defeat the political-civic opposition and the Venezuelan armed forces.
This was intended to assure his indefinite continuation in power. In a March television appearance, Mr. Chavez announced his decision to allocate $150 million from the federal budget to fund his armed thugs. This was illegal because the legislature had not given its approval.

The pseudo-legality of the existing democratic political system began in April 1999 when Mr. Chavez called for a referendum to decide whether a Constituent Assembly should be convened to write a new constitution for Venezuela.
The major democratic parties did not feel there was any need for a new constitution but, demoralized and intimidated, they made virtually no effort to contest the issue. The lack of citizen support for a new constitution was seen in the fact that only 39 percent of the Venezuelan electorate voted in the referendum.

In July 1999, elections were held to choose the delegates for the Constituent Assembly. Chavez supporters were confident, active and intimidating, while those representing the pro-democratic parties were fearful and only beginning to return to political activity. The groups opposing Mr. Chavez received 38 percent of the vote, compared with 42 percent for the pro-Chavez slates of candidates.

By a fraudulent process, the pro-Chavez 42 percent of the votes was translated into 93 percent of the seats in the Constituent Assembly, while the opposition parties received only the remaining 7 percent of the seats.

In August 1999, this Chavez-dominated Constituent Assembly convened and immediately took actions to neutralize and usurp the authority of the existing judiciary and of Venezuela’s elected Congress, where Chavez supporters had won only 20 percent of the seats.

On Aug. 25, 1999, the Constituent Assembly, in violation of the existing constitution, declared a “legislative emergency” and forbade the elected national Congress from meeting. From that time on, the elected national Congress was effectively sidelined.

These actions in July and August 1999 marked the Chavez regime as anti-democratic and in complete violation of the then-existing Venezuelan constitution.

Democratic political leaders in Venezuela appealed to the Organization of American States, the Clinton administration and other countries to speak out against these unconstitutional actions. Only silence was heard.

Mr. Chavez now moved to use pseudo-electoral means to put his loyalists in control of the powerful independent labor unions grouped together in the Venezuelan Confederation of Labor (CTV). IThe CTV has a long history of supporting political democracy and opposing dictatorship, and a well-organized membership of more than a million.

On Dec. 3, 2000, Mr. Chavez held a national referendum on whether all the union leaders should be dismissed from their positions. With turnout at only 23 percent, the referendum passed.

Labor leaders claimed this referendum violated the 1999 Chavez constitution, provisions of which protect union leaders from state intervention. Nevertheless, the CTV leadership was required to resign and run for office in new union elections, and 80 percent of previous CTV leaders were re-elected.

Having escaped the Chavez takeover attempt, the CTV labor unions have been all the more vigorous in their campaign for the restoration of democracy and their opposition to Mr. Chavez. They called a major pro-democracy demonstration for May 1.

Internationally, Mr. Chavez has established alliances with Cuba, Iraq and Iran, all state supporters of terrorism. He has provided the Castro regime with free oil, probably worth $2 billion, and worked closely with Cuba in support of the communist guerrillas in Colombia and other anti-democratic movements attacking nearby countries.

Even the Clinton administration broke its silence on Mr. Chavez, stating in December 2000 that the Venezuelan was supporting “violent movements opposing the governments of Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador.” There has been an increasing flow of credible evidence, including from the former Chavez chief of intelligence, that the regime has been and remains a state supporter of terrorism through its aid for the Colombian communist guerrillas and other radical groups.

As Mr. Chavez consolidates his control in the coming weeks and months, his actions will threaten democracy in Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Brazil, where Mr. Chavez and Fidel Castro both hope to repeat the pattern of a pseudo-constitutional takeover through the election of the radical Ignacio da Silva as president in October.

That could put nearly 300 million people under the control of pro-Castro/Iraq radical regimes before 2004 – a major gain for anti-U.S. terrorism and a major setback for the people there and for the Bush administration.

Constantine C. Menges is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/85241.shtml
________________________________________________

I’m sure that’s not enough for you TB but then again nothing is ever enough for you leftist’s.

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Shadow, nice try but the fucking Euro is going absolutley fucking nowhere. End game.

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Treason,
wethers its going nowhere or not doesnt matter if countries switch to it and doing so cut out the greenback as the money used to sell oil worldwide..There reason being they will not use the Greenback to support a enemy state. So the Euro could be going nowhere then why not explain why almost all large oil producing countries are switching and doing so cutting the Fed Reserve out of the picture???

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Treason: Go ahead and tell us all the terrible things Chavez has done. Yes, he’s a dictator. The world is full of dictatorships and police states. The reason we’re zeroing in on him has nothing to do with “democracy.” He’s a threat to the multinational corporations that want Venezuela to remain their colony. Hence Bush’s and Robertson’s crocodile tears about “democracy.”

Shadow: You’ve got it right. Bush’s puppetmasters are telling him what to say and do.

Jet, TB: Thanks for your comments.

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Well, I don’t know but this seemed pretty interesting:
_________________________________________________

The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro
Re-denominating Iraqi oil in U. S. dollars, instead of the euro
by Sohan Sharma, Sue Tracy, & Surinder Kumar
Z magazine, February 2004

What prompted the U.S. attack on Iraq, a country under sanctions for 12 years (1991-2003), struggling to obtain clean water and basic medicines? A little discussed factor responsible for the invasion was the desire to preserve “dollar imperialism” as this hegemony began to be challenged by the euro.
After World War II, most of Europe and Japan lay economically prostrate, their industries in shambles and production, in general, at a minimum level. The U.S. was the only major power to escape the destruction of war, its industries thriving with a high level of productivity. In addition, prior to and during WWII, due to extreme political and economic upheaval, a considerable amount of gold from European countries was transferred to the U.S. Thus, after WWII the U.S. had accumulated 80 percent of the world’s gold and 40 percent of the world’s production. At the founding of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944-45, U.S. predominance was absolute. A fixed exchange currency was established based on gold, the gold-dollar standard, wherein the value of the dollar was pegged to the price of gold-U.S. $35 per ounce of gold. Because gold was combined with U.S. bank notes, the dollar note and gold became equivalent, which then became the international reserve currency.
Initially, the U.S. had $30 billion in gold reserves. But the United States spent more than $500 billion on the Vietnam War alone, from 1967-1972. During these years, the U.S. had over 110 military bases across the globe, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These expenses were paid in paper dollars and the total number given out far exceeded the gold reserve of the U.S treasury. By then (1971-72), the U.S. Treasury was running out of gold and had only $10 billion in gold left. On August 17, 1971, Nixon suspended the U.S. dollar conversion into gold. Thus, the dollar was “floated” in the international monetary market.
Also in the early 1970s, U.S. oil production peaked and its energy resources began to deplete. Its own oil production could not keep pace with growing home consumption. Since then, U.S. demand for oil continually increased, and by 2002-2003 the U.S. imported approximately 60 percent of its oil-OPEC (primarily Saudi Arabia) being the main exporter. The U.S. sought to protect its dollar strength and hegemony by ensuring that Saudi Arabia price its oil only in dollars. To achieve this, the U.S. made a deal, some say a secret one, that it would protect the Saudi regime in exchange for their selling oil only in dollars.
Throughout the late 1950s and 1960s the Arab world was in ferment over an emerging Nasser brand of Arab nationalism and the Saudi monarchy began to fear for its own stability. In Iraq, the revolutionary officers corps had taken power with a socialist program. In Libya, military officers with an Islamic socialist ideology took power in 1969 and closed the U.S. Wheelus Air base; in 1971, Libya nationalized the holdings of British Petroleum. There were proposals for uniting several Arab states-Syria, Egypt, and Libya. During 1963-1967, a civil war developed in Yemen between Republicans (anti-monarchy) and Royalist forces along almost the entire southern border of Saudi Arabia. Egyptian forces entered Yemen in support of republican forces, while the Saudis supported the royalist forces to shield its own monarchy. Eventually, the Saudi government-a medieval, Islamic fundamentalist, dynastic monarchy with absolute power-survived the nationalistic upheavals.
Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer with the largest known oil reserves, is the leader of OPEC. It is the only member of the OPEC cartel that does not have an allotted production quota. It is the “swing producer,” i.e., it can increase or decrease oil production to bring oil draught or glut in the world market. This enables it more or less to determine prices.
Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., “fiat” dollars.
Fiat money or currency (usually paper money) is a type of currency whose only value is that a government made a “fiat” (decree) that the money is a legal method of exchange. Unlike commodity money, or representative money, it is not based in any other commodity such as gold or silver and is not covered by a special reserve. Fiat money is a promise to pay by the usurer and does not necessarily have any intrinsic value. Its value lies in the issuer’s financial means and creditworthiness.
Such fiat dollars are invested or deposited in U.S. banks or the U.S. Treasury by most non-oil producing, underdeveloped countries to protect their currencies and generate oil credit. Today foreigners hold 48 percent of the U.S. Treasury bond market and own 24 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market and 20 percent of all U.S. corporations. In total, foreigners hold $8 trillion of U.S. assets. Nevertheless, the foreign deposited dollars strengthen the U.S. dollar and give the United States enormous power to manipulate the world economy, set rules, and prevail in the international market.
Thus, the U. S. effectively controls the world oil-market as the dollar has become the “fiat” international trading currency. Today U.S. currency accounts for approximately two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all the world exports are denominated in dollars and U.S. currency accounts for about two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. The fact that billions of dollars worth of oil is priced in dollars ensures the world domination of the dollar. It allows the U.S. to act as the world’s central bank, printing currency acceptable everywhere. The dollar has become an oil-backed, not gold-backed, currency.
If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance-dollar imperialism or hegemony-would be seriously challenged. More and more oil importing countries would acquire the euro as their “reserve,” its value would increase, and a larger amount of trade would be transacted and denominated in euros. In such circumstances, the value of the dollar would most likely go down, some speculate between 20-40 percent.
In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq’s oil for food account at the UN was also in euros and Iraq later converted its $10 billion reserve fund at the UN to euros. Several other oil producing countries have also agreed to sell oil in euros-Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Indonesia, and Malaysia (soon to join this group). In July 2003, China announced that it would switch part of its dollar reserves into the world’s emerging “reserve currency” (the euro).
On January 1, 1999, when 11 European countries formed a monetary union around this currency, Britain and Norway, the major oil producers, were absent. As the U.S. economy began to slow down during mid-2000, Western stock markets began to yield lower dividends. Investors from Gulf Cooperation Council nations lost over $800 million in the stock plunge. As investors sold U.S. assets and reinvested in Europe, which seemed to be better shielded from a recession, the euro began to gain ground against the dollar .
After September 11, 2001, Islamic financiers began to repatriate their dollar investments-amounting to billions of dollars-to Arab banks, as they were worried about the possible seizure of their assets under the USA PATRIOT Act. Also, they feared their accounts might be frozen on the suspicion that such accounts fund Islamic terrorists. Iranian sources stated that their banking colleagues felt particularly hassled as Washington heated up its war of words and threats of military intervention. This encouraged Tehran to abandon the dollar payment for oil sales and switch to the euro. Iran also moved the majority of its reserve fund to the euro. (Iran is the latest target of the U.S., which has interfered by stirring up opposition forces, and making covert threats.)
OPEC member countries and the euro-zone have strong trade links, with more than 45 percent of total merchandize imports of OPEC member countries coming from the countries of the euro-zone, while OPEC members are the main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. The EU has a bigger share of global trade than the U.S. and, while the U.S. has a huge current account deficit, the EU has a more balanced external accounts position. The EU plans to enlarge in May 2004 with ten new members. It will have a population of 450 million; it will have an oil consuming-purchasing population 33 percent larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. In order to reduce currency risks, Europeans will pressure OPEC to trade oil in euros. Countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia-which export oil and natural gas to European countries and in turn import goods and services from them-will have an interest in reducing their currency risk and hence, pricing oil and gas in euros. Thus momentum is building toward at least the dual use of euro and dollar pricing.
The unprovoked “shock and awe” attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.
The U.S. also wants to create a new oil cartel in the Middle East and Africa to replace OPEC. To this end the U.S. has been pressuring Nigeria to withdraw from OPEC and its strict production quotas by dangling the prospects of generous U.S. aid. Instead the U.S. seeks to promote a “U.S.-Nigeria Alignment,” which would place Nigeria as the primary oil exporter to the U.S. Another move by the U.S. is to promote oil production in other African countries-Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Angola, from where the U.S. imports a significant amount of oil-so that the oil control of OPEC is loosened, if not broken. Furthermore, the U.S. is pressuring non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC’s market control and challenge the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro.
To break up OPEC and control the world’s oil supply, it is also helpful to control Middle East and central Asiatic oil producing countries through which oil pipelines traverse. The first attack and occupation was of Afghanistan, October 2001, in itself a gas producing country, but primarily a country through which Central Asia and the Caspian Sea oil and gas will be shipped (piped) to energy-starved Pakistan and India. Afghanistan also provided an alternative to previously existing Russian pipelines. Simultaneously, the U.S. acquired military bases-19 of them-in the Central Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in the Caspian Basin, all of which are potential oil producers. After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. controlled the natural resources of these two countries and, once again, Iraq’s oil began to be traded in U.S. dollars. The UN’s oil for food production program was scrapped and the U.S. Iaunched its Iraqi Assistance Fund in U.S. dollars. In December 2003, the U.S. (Pentagon) announced that it had barred French, German, and Russian oil and other companies from bidding on Iraq’s reconstruction.
How would a shift to the euro affect underdeveloped countries, most of which are either non-oil producing or do not produce enough for their home consumption and development? These countries have to import oil. One of the advantages that may accrue to them is that they are likely to earn more euros than dollars since much of their trade is with the European countries. On the other hand, a shift to euro will pose a similar dilemma for them as dollars. They will have to pay for oil in euros, have enough euros deposited-invested in EU treasuries, and borrow euros if they do not have enough for their oil purchases. If, as is projected, the dollar and euro are in a price band (that is, prices will stay within an agreed upon range), they may not have much of a bargaining position.
Oil for euros would be far more helpful if oil-importing underdeveloped countries could develop some form of barter arrangement for their goods to obtain oil from OPEC. Venezuela (Chavez) has presented a successful working model of this. Following Venezuela’s lead, several underdeveloped countries began bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals, and commodities are now traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela’s oil. President Chavez has linked 13 such barter deals on its oil; e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban doctors and paramedics who are setting up clinics in shanty towns and rural areas. Such arrangements help underdeveloped countries save their hard currencies, lessening indebtedness to international bankers, the World Bank, and IMF, so that money thus saved can be used for internal development.

Sohan Sharma is a professor emeritus at California State University in Sacramento. Sue Tracy is a hazardous waste material scientist in Sacramento. Surinder Kumar is professor of economics In Rohtak, Inala.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html
_________________________________________________

Whatcha think?

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Listen most all Pres. are nothing more than figure-heads answering to the real wealth and power elite in this country. Shit Karl Rove is more in charge than W. But that is kinda away from the point here. Chavez being good, bad or sexy still in reality shouldnt be any of our busniess we have MUCH larger problems to solve right here in America. Like for instance the majoirty of the American people that are so willing to allow their rights to be stolen from under their noses with 9-11 being the reason. But not ONE intelligent person outside of the power elite could tell any of us who give damn what really happend and who was really responsble for 9-11. They just label you as a conspiracy theory freek and leave it at that. I for one would need much more crediable eviedence to make me a believer in the story so many in this country are so easliy taken by.

By Republican Vet on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

I think what we’ll have to do is like Clinton did. He let bin Laden go several times and then we were attacked. I think Bush will have to let Chavez go until we’re devastated again. It’s obvious that when we have intel that suggests we’re in danger and we strike before they do, the “smart” people turn against us. Not that liberating millions, deposing a tyrant, holding elections, establishing a democracy, training a police/military force and initiating a constitution wasn’t enough. We just can’t act before someone else does anymore or it’s considered lying because the act hasn’t taken place yet. We have to let people go, like bin Laden, and wait until we’re attacked first.

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Good point RP, now all we have to do is catch Bin Laden and we can end the war in Iraq because for some reason they keep producing a #2 man for Al-Qaueda. What kind of theory is that you have going? Can you even cite the original reason we went into Iraq? I’ll give you a hint — WMD — I don’t remember being told about terrorists until after the WMD’s didn’t show up.

And lets set the record straight before we go further, the only person that says their are terrorists in Venezuala is Pat Robertson. And we all know he is a secret CIA operative just waiting to be outted by Karl Rove.

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Crap I’m drunk again and typing badly. I own the site and could go in and fix it but damn it I don’t want to!!!

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

OK I don’t own the site we all own the site but I don’t want to fix it. See how easy that is, leave Hugo alone.

By Library Lady on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

What I want to know is why Pat Robertson has such a bee in his bonnet about Chavez. I don’t seem to recall hearing him recommend assasination for any other world leader/dictators in recent years.

Is this something someone has put him up to? Or does Chavez have damning photographs of him in women’s under–or attending a Democratic fundraiser or something else equally horrible?

By ken grandlund on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

The Venezualan menace is only one in that it threatens the corporations (and through a trickle down fashion the rest of us) by reducing their profit margins. Any other threat they may pose is of our own making and because of our bellicosity towards other ways of doing things (i.e.- not for the corporations all the time.)

Venezuelan internal politics are THEIR business. THEY voted for the guy, so THEY are the ones who need to tell him to put up or shut up. Harder to do in a dictatorship, I know, but do we really need to but in here too? I don’t hear any Venezuelans crying for American assistance…

We get most of our oil imports from Canada, not South America or the Middle East (if you look at individual nations that supply us.). It’s time we stopped basing all of our geopolitical machinations on oil and economics and started lookiing to a foreign policy that respects the poeple of the various countries for what THEY want, regardless if it is not “the American Ideal of Democracy.” When the people of a foreign nation ask us for help, we should lsiten and offer what they need if we can. Not just give them what we want them to have- which in most cases is a load of debt and a corporate hegemony inserted to rape and pillage their resources.

By Jersey McJones on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

I actually do know a little about Chavez bewond the web browsed blather we have above.

He has done a lot for the poor of Venezuela with more to come in the future and he is a very popular leader there and in the region. Now there’s a bit of a Mugabe-style land grab going on down there now as Hugo tries a little Homesteading on for size and tries to dissuade further drug cultivation. So, some of the land owners are complaining, but, like in Zimbabwe, their claims to the land are tenuous at best as usually these “deeds” were ostensibly written up during colonial times for colonists and so have little meaning to the nationals of today.

Certain Americans hate Hugo because he’s popularly elected and is a socialist, both concepts disdained by the American Right. The reason the powers that be hate him is because of the oil and because he’s ruining America’s longstanding Monroe Doctrine of Abuse Small Nations.

So fo those on the Right who are so stupid as to have utterly forgotten the past, you’d better leave Hugo alone, lest you get a real Castro down there. History doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Hugo and Castro are not Super Villians who conquered their respective nations with magical powers. They rose to power as a consequence of our abuse. Better watch out - that may happen here someday too - and they’ll be shouting Viva Jersey McJonesio!

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

I heard rumors of Pat owning interests in an oil company down there. Doing some research now but his threats would make sense if it were true.

By The Bastard on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

“Viva Jersey McJonesio”

Are you italian?

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

We could have had Bin Laden in 1996 when he was in the Sudan..The Sudanease Gov. was trying with Madeline Albrights state dept. to have him indicted and sent to us thru the Saudi Kingdom..she stonewalled them reason being you dont let a patsy get caught until he has served his purpose. and after that i can tell you he would only be brought in a body bag his tenstimony alone would shoot way to many holes in the medias version..Again believing Bin Laden was ALONE responsible for the 9-11 attacks is just plain brain dead thinking.
Read history about false flag terror before you so innocently believe a man in a cave could have pulled off the terror attack of the century. Bin-Laden couldnt walk 8 ducks acros the street without help and your willing believe he bipassed the most heavily gaurded air space in the WORLD.(Pentagon,Wash DC) If a plane even goes off course by 1/10 th of a mile a fighter jet is scrambled to intercept IMMEDIATELY..look it up 67 times in 1999 alone. And Andrews air force base is 5 minutes from where these four planes were not only off course but had there transponders off..PLEASE..Im not suggesting Bush was responsible but anyone who believes the medias story that was presented is a fool..Only time in history a buiding has fallen becasue of fire and on one day 3 did..Yea.. Jet fule is basically kerosene burns at 450 degress(look it up) steel melts at 1550 degrees again look it up..Im not a conspiracy theory junky im a truth junky.

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Shadow, Library Lady, Ken, Jersey, TB:

Thanks for your comments. I can’t think of anything to add at this point. This is a great discussion we’ve got going here. Keep the comments comin’.

By Shadow on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

I’ll add that what the hell is anyone listening to Pat in the firs place for.Sheep who cant thibk for themselves. They need so called spiritual guidance. If I was a power elite I would love that the masses argue over religion seeing that knowone knows shit else besides opinion. If you have spirit in your heart that is a wonderful thing,and the forefathers were very Keen on church and state being seperate..not that I agree with what a bunch of slave owning indian killing assholes said or say..

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Bastard wrote: “And lets set the record straight before we go further, the only person that says their are terrorists in Venezuala is Pat Robertson.”

TB, do you know how to READ? Here, I’ll repost this for ya:

Bill Clinton: Even the Clinton administration broke its silence on Mr. Chavez, stating in December 2000 that the Venezuelan was supporting “violent movements opposing the governments of Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador.” There has been an increasing flow of credible evidence, including from the former Chavez chief of intelligence, that the regime has been and remains a state supporter of terrorism through its aid for the Colombian communist guerrillas and other radical groups.

So, Bastard, is it just Pat R. saying it?

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Mr. Harper wrote: “Shadow, Library Lady, Ken, Jersey, TB:

Thanks for your comments. I can’t think of anything to add at this point. This is a great discussion we’ve got going here. Keep the comments comin’.”
________________________________________________

Tom, I’m guessing you don’t like my comments? My feelings are hurt!

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Sorry Treason, I shouldn’t have skipped you. You’ve been very civil today and I appreciate it. Keep the comments comin’.

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Very civil? Thanx Tom, you really have me laughing.

Just for the record I do believe Pat Robertson is a complete Jack Ass. And if anyone really would like to know the real reason for Mr. Robertson’s “assasination” remarks it probably has to do with getting his name into the news/media because he just released a new book this month. I believe it’s called Courting Disaster. I advise no one to rush out and buy it. But I’m sure most people whom visit BIO! have rushed out to buy it already. I bet TheBastard stood in line the night before it was released to get the first copy!

By The Fat Lady Sings on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

I’ll try to be the very soul of brevity. Pat Robertson probably made all that guff about Chavez up out of whole cloth. He likes to position himself on the world stage, but keeps muffing his lines. I think the real story here has less to do with Chavez and his political beliefs, than Robertson and his off the wall interpretation of Christianity. The problem is, some people can’t get past the ‘avowed Christian’ part, and take the time to really listen to what the man is advocating. Murder, no matter what you dress it up in, is against every moral tenet espoused by the faith he so loudly claims to profess.

I touched on the bastardization of religion on my blog, cross-posting it at Street Prophets. Talk about a firestorm! Some people just can’t get past the ‘Reverend’ part. They pre-suppose altruistic motivations for people who embrace religiosity as a means to an end. So I don’t think the questions should be about Chavez – they should focus on Robertson, and his continual troubling predilection for violence.

By Louisiana Conservative on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Actually, I have just completed two extensive posts on Hugo Chavez, you may want to rethink your position on him.

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

And what might that be Louisiana Conservative?

By Treason on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

That was a good read Lou. Conserv. to bad most people here at BIO! don’t see Chavez for what he is. But then again they are libs.

By Tom Harper on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

Lou. Con.:

I agree it’s a good read. Like I stated in my post and in a previous comment, Chavez sucks. He’s a dictator; no two ways about it. As far as whether he’s trying to spread communism throughout Latin America — the best way to prevent that would be to rein in some of the excesses of the global corporations that treat Latin America as their own personal fiefdom. This is what makes communism look attractive to millions of poor people.

I’m not too familiar with most of the sources you cited, but WorldNetDaily? Come on, those people are so out of it, they sound like a Saturday Night Live episode or a Daily Show skit mimicing the Far Right.

By The Cranky Liberal on Oct 13, 2005 | Reply

No actually he is not a dictator. He may be many things, but he is a democraticaly (for south america anyhow) elected leader. Just because you have a democracy, does not mean your going to like who the people vote for. Gee we know something about that don’t we.

By Jersey McJones on Oct 14, 2005 | Reply

Down here in Reallifeville, we know better than to accept the Rabble Rousing Rhetoric of the Right - especially the Mass Media. What the hell do we really know about Chavez? Well, we know what we don’t know, and we know what we do. Chavez was popularly elected. There have been no mass purges, labor camps, mass arrests, or any other Castro-esque extemes to anyone’s knowledge.

What the Sheep on the Right believe is whatever they are told - and if they can use Bill Clinton, a Blue Dog Conservative Democrat that they refer to as a “liberal” and as “the hero of liberals”, then fine. Anything to support what they want to believe. God forbid they are wrong! God forbid they put their money on the wrong horse! A small man can never admit his mistakes. Look at Iraq. What do the sleazy sheep say about that? “Well, Bill Clinton said Saddam was BAD!” and “The UN said Saddam was bad!” and “We are just following up for Clinton and the UN!” If the Bait ‘n Switch was bread, these people would have burst like Mr Creosote.

Chavez was popularly elected. I thought that was good enough for the Sleazy Cons. Huh.

By Tom Harper on Oct 14, 2005 | Reply

Chavez is a threat to Big Business. That’s all it takes — that’s probably why he’ll be taken out sometime. Guatemala in the 1950s, Chile in 1973 — both were a threat to global corporations. In both cases we had to conjure up this spectre of Communism spreading like a cancer, and then the CIA quietly engineers a coup in the name of “freedom.”

I hope things have changed since then, but I doubt it.

By six finger jim on Oct 17, 2005 | Reply

If Chaves wants to really piss Bush off ,let him start building refineries down there.Sell the world gasoline instead of crude.War for sure.

By The Bastard on Oct 17, 2005 | Reply

Amen!!!! Viva La Chaves!!! Refineries, more of them, what a great fucking idea, why didn’t our country think of it first?

Because 46% of our country believes we are only 6,000 years old, we are soooooooo fucked!!!!!!!!!!

By Six Finger Jim on Oct 17, 2005 | Reply

Bush don’t need a reason anyway!He’ll make em up as he goes.Hell there’s oil down there ,send the dogs.War in the Americans how convinient.

By zero on Oct 18, 2005 | Reply

Treson, did you also post under the name of “The Chosen One”?